Friday, May 2, 2014

Vote Fraud Deniers Tortured Logic to Support Their Case

I appreciate Professor Hasen responding to
our post on Project21. However, there is
one overall problem with Professor Hasen’s response; he can only cite partisan
sources. Our original
post
relied mostly on examples supporting ID and opposing Vote Fraud from Democrats
or truly non-partisan sources. Professor
Hasen is merely echoing the far left with his response. On his specific points.

Point 1. Hasen writes “There’s no reason to believe that impersonation fraud
prosecutions would be undercounted.” Prosecutions
are not the standard to measure vote fraud.
Led by Al Sharpton and groups like the Brennan Center any effort to even
INVESTIGATE let alone prosecute vote fraud is met with charges by the left of
partisanship, voter suppression and racism.
In the last year at the home of Sharpton and the Brennan Center, New
York, the police have
been threatened with prosecution for exposing how easy it is to commit vote
fraud.

But again, let me cite a
liberal source on why prosecutions are not the correct standard. As the liberal African American Rhode Island
State Senator Democrat Harold Mettsstated in
support of the need for voter ID:

The old system was not set
up to readily weed out fraud; and it would be very hard to prove. Moreover,
winners on election night would soon forget about any fraud, while the losers’
concerns would be dismissed as sour grapes.
We know that many rapes and other crimes go unreported. Does this mean
that unreported rapes did not occur? We cannot allow the integrity of our
system to be violated.

Point 2. Hasen
writes “Justin Levitt has been
collectingallreported cases he can find of credible
voter impersonation”

Do you think police witnessing voter impersonation should
count? In Levitt’s narrow definition it
does not. For that isexactly what happen
in Levitt’s backyard during the 2013 New
York City’s Mayoral elections. Of
course, the police could not do anything about it because it was not in the
“purview.”

This is not an unusual occurrence but suffice it to say that
Levitt’s definition of “credible and all” and a neutral person on the issue
would be very different. It is why the bipartisan
Carter-Baker
report came out for ID.

Point
3. Hasen writes “Iimpersonation
fraud requires a large conspiracy of individuals being sent into the polls
claiming to be someone else.” Voter ID stops other kinds of fraud beside
voter impersonation fraud. Let me give
you just one example. Professor Hasen can you pull out your Driver's License? This has your address on it. Because of the
efforts of the far left and despite laws and bipartisan support, it is almost
impossible to remove a person from the voter registration list. Thus if you were a visiting Professor in
Chicago last year and registered to vote there, it would be very easy for you
to vote there in 2014. Illinois has a
very unpopular and vulnerable Democrat Governor and may have a very close race
this year, unlike most races in California where you live now. Without an ID requirement, you and others
like you could easily vote for Governor in Illinois despite not living their
currently or intending to live there. No
one would be impersonating you. (You
could also vote at old addresses you lived in California in a different Congressional District that is targeted this year.)

Now California to Illinois is a long trip. (Although at least one Californian bragged in
the Milwaukee Police Report about voting in Wisconsin over their California residence
so their vote for President would “count.”)
But Milwaukee to Chicago or vice versa is an easier commute than most
people have coming to your school of UCI in California on a daily basis. If you don’t think that happens, you did not
read the Milwaukee
Police Report.

Point 4. Hasen writes “Stop thebait and
switchof calling people on the left ‘vote fraud deniers.’” One
can deny impersonation fraud is a problem “

That is the problem, Professor Hasen. By focusing on impersonation fraud as the
only type of fraud you are very much in denial.
By using prosecution as the only means to measure fraud while the far left are fighting every effort at prosecution or even
investigation, you are in denial.

I will cite just one example of the latter; the reason the far
left fights every effort to clean up voter lists because they know sloppy lists
make prosecution difficult or impossible and fraud easier, in this case double voting (again not impersonation.) As the Task Force of the Milwaukee
Police Report stated:

Two of these persons were
tried in Federal Court, resulting in one finding of ‘Not Guilty’ and one ‘hung’
jury, where no verdict could be reached.
In both instances, jurors responded after the trials that although there
appeared to be evidence that these individuals voted more than once, the
mismanagement of the voting records by the Election Commission presented them
with questions about the record system and they could not find guilt ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’…The
Milwaukee Election Commission, through their ineptitude, raised enough reasonable
doubt to prevent further criminal prosecution. It was impossible to ask a jury
to believe that records were accurate as they related to those persons being
prosecuted, while admitting that there were numerous errors committed
throughout the election process.” [The
Report Page 55, Emphasis in Original]

More prosecutions did not happen not because of innocence of the fraudsters, but the incompetence of election officials and sloppy voter
rolls. This is an ongoing effort by the
left. By calling any effort to fix voter
rolls “list purging” the left is ensuring that prosecutions are more
difficult.

Point 5. Hasen writes “And, by the way, the report has nothing to do with
impersonation fraud, the whole point of voter id laws.” This is a misreading of the police
report. Again, unlike Lonnie Minnette
who you cite, an extreme partisan, the NONPARTISAN police wrote about Voter ID stopping
more than impersonation fraud:

In
a targeted state in a Presidential election year thousands of out of state volunteers for
the Democrat Presidential campaign descend on Wisconsin and worked to get out
the vote. Perfectly legal and good. However, the Milwaukee Police found that a
number of these volunteers that they investigated were taking advantage of the
same day registration laws and voting in Wisconsin. This is not in dispute as they readily
confessed it to police. The fact the
police caught people from upper management to canvassers shows it was
widespread. This is not impersonation
however as they all voted for themselves.
But this is vote fraud that ID could stop as none had intent either to
reside or live in Wisconsin or to obtain a Wisconsin ID. From the report:

Where proof could not be provided to Election
officials that these staff members could vote in Milwaukee, other staff members
who were registered voters vouched for them by corroborating their
residency. More alarmingly, other staff
members who were deputy registrars for this election simply registered these
individuals as Milwaukee residents, bypassing Election officials
altogether. The actions of the listed
campaign and 527 staff members appear to be violations of State of Wisconsin
Law as it relates to registering of voters and the casting of ballots in an
election. . . .

The belief of the investigators is that each of
these persons had to commit multiple criminal acts in an effort to reach their
ultimate goal of voting, showing that the act was a conscious, intentional
effort to commit a crime. Each person
described above committed at least two criminal acts associated with their
effort to commit voter fraud. In the
case of several of these individuals, additional criminal acts were committed
by other persons in the completion of a criminal act. Registering a person to vote that was known
to be ineligible, registering to vote when ineligible and the actual process of
then voting are all crimes under Wisconsin State Statues. . . .

The investigators found, through media and
Internet sources, that the two organizations, in their own words, placed
thousands of staffers and volunteers in Wisconsin during the course of this
election cycle….[T]he persons described in this section represent multiple
levels of both of the organizations; from upper management to the street level canvassers.
…There does remain a strong possibility that the discovery of these random
staffers voting illegally is the proverbial ‘tip of the iceberg’ as it relates
to an illegal organized attempt to influence the outcome of an election in the
state of Wisconsin.” [The Report, Page
51-53 Bold and Italics in Original, Underlined added.]

The
police felt this fraud was strong enough that there was a “strong possibility”
that it led to a narrow Democrat victory and the delivery of the state’s
electoral votes by fraud to the Democrat candidate for President. It was in an effort to stop this in the
future that the police came out in favor of Voter ID:

As an alternative, if On-Site registration is
to continue in its present form, then the presentation of a government issued
identification card that includes the voter’s name, address (including city)
and date of birth should be presented before that person is allowed to register
and vote.

While I disagree strongly with your reliance of liberal
accusations and ignoring bipartisan reports and studies, maybe we can agree on
the need to clean up voter rolls. That
would be a step. I hope all but the far left will agree it is important to
having more open, honest and fair elections.